Baska v. Scherzer

156 P.3d 617 · Supreme Court of Kansas · 2007

Facts

Celesta Baska hosted a party at her home for her daughter's friends. During the party, an altercation broke out between two guests, Harry Scherzer, Jr., and Calvin Madrigal, who began pushing and throwing punches at each other. Baska, upon learning of the fight, yelled at the boys to stop. When they continued, she stepped between them to break up the fight. While attempting to intervene, Baska was punched in the face, losing several teeth and sustaining injuries to her neck and jaw. She believed both Scherzer and Madrigal struck her, though both defendants testified they intended to strike each other, not Baska.

Procedural history

Celesta Baska filed her action after one year but within two years of her injury. The trial court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing Baska's action, concluding it was governed by the 1-year statute of limitations for assault and battery. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Baska's action sounded in negligence and was subject to the 2-year statute of limitations. The defendants then filed petitions for review, which this court granted.

Issue

Whether the plaintiff's action for injuries sustained when unintentionally struck during an intentional fight between two defendants is governed by the 1-year statute of limitations for assault and battery or the 2-year statute of limitations for negligence.

Holding

The court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and affirmed the district court, holding that the plaintiff's action was governed by the 1-year statute of limitations for assault and battery, thus barring her claim.

Rule

The fundamental distinction between assault and battery (intentional torts) and negligence (unintentional torts) is the actor's intent. The doctrine of transferred intent states that a battery or assault and battery may be committed even if the person struck is not the one the defendant intended to strike. If an actor intends to cause harmful contact to one person, and that act causes harmful contact to a third person, the actor is liable for battery to the third person. Therefore, if two individuals fighting intend to strike each other but unintentionally strike a third party, the act remains an intentional tort of assault and battery, not negligence.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.